Tuesday, November 08, 2005

One of the few blogs on my daily reading list is Rigorous Intuition. Big-brained writer Jeff Wells provides lyrical unpacking of deep politics, parapolitics and sometimes even talks about UFOs and the Men in Black. What's not to love? He's got his shit together and gets away with digging into stuff we are constantly told "do not touch."

Today his column deals with the trouble with John Kerry vis a vis the Mark Crispin Miller blunder. In my recent piece I mention, "Kerry campaign insiders (or people who claimed that status) were whispering about how some in the Democratic party were "in on" the whole election fraud business and they didn't want, and wouldn't let any of this come to light." Rigorous Intuition digs deeper than I was ready to go this weekend:

I don't know if Miller really expected Kerry to publicly stand by his private words, though I'm sure Kerry never expected to be called on them. Miller isn't a fabulist; the conversation happened, and good for him to stand against the slander of Kerry's people to report it. (By the way, who can imagine Kerry fighting quixotically and supra-constitutionally today to reverse the outcome, when he capitulated before the outcome of the tainted election was even known?)

But of course, what could Kerry say? If he knows the general election was stolen, then he should also know his peculiar ascension in the primaries cannot be attributed to charisma and dumb luck. He should, but he probably doesn't, because without the ego that could blind him to such a self-evident truth he would never have risen to such a place of utility within America's equestrian class.

If he did, he would be CLEAN to go after Bush's election fraud. Howard Dean was the frontrunner polling way ahead of Kerry until the first few primaries astonishingly gave us Kerry as the candidate-apparent. Remember that? Remember the weird post-primary spin that regardless of what people said to pollsters, they pulled the lever for the person they thought could win. The meme was the Dems had "grown up" and wanted a boring, but "able" winner.

What if that is as wrong as The Moral Mandate after the unexpected Bush win in the general election? What if both parties are in on thee fraud. Maybe that would explain the strange disconnect between the interest of the people (election fraud) and the interest of the forums they speak on (not so much on the election fraud).